What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098148?

The tribunal order states: April Joanne Riwaka must pay Najib Property Management Limited $5,757.60

How much money was awarded in case 5098148?

Rubbish Removal: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4956833 D…: $2,677.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098148?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644922-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098148?

The tribunal order states: April Joanne Riwaka must pay Najib Property Management Limited $5,757.60

How much money was awarded in case 5098148?

Rubbish Removal: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4956833 D…: $2,677.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098148?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644922-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Clifton Street, Little River, RD 1, Little River 7591 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098148 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098148 — net $5,757.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4956833 dated 16/10/2024	$2,677.00	Previous order application 4956833 dated 16/10/2024
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,700.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$530.60	Lock/key replacement
Garage door	$850.00	Garage door
Net award	$5,757.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,757.60

Order

April Joanne Riwaka must pay Najib Property Management Limited $5,757.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not join the remote hearing and was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys. 1
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces.
The landlord claimed $1,998 for rubbish removal and cleaning which relates to one invoice. Although not itemised in the invoice, I consider it likely the majority of the invoice relates to rubbish removal. There was a significant amount of rubbish removal required as the tenant did not remove all the rubbish. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but the premises was close to this standard. Some surfaces needed a further wipe down and the area where the rubbish was left would have required cleaning.
I have largely reimbursed the invoice but made a deduction to reflect my comment above and because the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be re-tenanted.
I make an order for the amount of $1,700.00.
The amount ordered is proved with pre tenancy and post tenancy photographs which were provided by the landlord.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and the post tenancy inspection report confirms the keys were not returned. The amount ordered of $530.60 is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 7 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 8
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Garage door damage
The landlord says the garage door was damaged during the tenancy. I consider the photos provided by the landlord show that there is a dent in the garage door. The landlord said the damage appears careless. I understand the garage door is approximately 10 years old. The quote to replace the garage door is $2,472.50.
The landlord said the garage door has not been repaired or replaced and can still be used, but it is intended to be replaced. The landlord has insurance and the insurance excess is $850. I make an order for this amount. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Claim for kitchen bench and floor repairs.
The landlord claimed $6,272.10 in relation to damage to the kitchen bench/cabinetry and $5,065 for damage to the floor. The landlord confirmed these claims relate to the same claims that were dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 16 October 2024.
There is a principle of finality in litigation which means that the parties must bring their best case on the day of the hearing, because the order of the Tribunal or Court will be final and end the proceeding (other than for appeals 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. and rehearing’s). In addition, the RTA states every order made by the Tribunal shall be final. 9 The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
The Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer 10 has said the following in relation to res judicata - Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties ... — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties ... of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel.
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate matters that formed part of their previous application. The claims for compensation for the kitchen and flooring were dismissed in the previous proceedings by the Order dated 16 October 2024. If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then the landlord could have appealed to the District Court.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims in respect of the kitchen bench and cabinetry and the floor are dismissed. Previous order 9 See s 80 of the RTA. 10 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at para [16].
On 16 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for termination, rent arrears to 16/10/24 and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
As the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression but as the application has not been wholly or substantially successful, I decline name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098148 — net $5,757.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4956833 dated 16/10/2024	$2,677.00	Previous order application 4956833 dated 16/10/2024
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,700.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$530.60	Lock/key replacement
Garage door	$850.00	Garage door
Net award	$5,757.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,757.60

Order

April Joanne Riwaka must pay Najib Property Management Limited $5,757.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not join the remote hearing and was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys. 1
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces.
The landlord claimed $1,998 for rubbish removal and cleaning which relates to one invoice. Although not itemised in the invoice, I consider it likely the majority of the invoice relates to rubbish removal. There was a significant amount of rubbish removal required as the tenant did not remove all the rubbish. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but the premises was close to this standard. Some surfaces needed a further wipe down and the area where the rubbish was left would have required cleaning.
I have largely reimbursed the invoice but made a deduction to reflect my comment above and because the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be re-tenanted.
I make an order for the amount of $1,700.00.
The amount ordered is proved with pre tenancy and post tenancy photographs which were provided by the landlord.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and the post tenancy inspection report confirms the keys were not returned. The amount ordered of $530.60 is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 7 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 8
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Garage door damage
The landlord says the garage door was damaged during the tenancy. I consider the photos provided by the landlord show that there is a dent in the garage door. The landlord said the damage appears careless. I understand the garage door is approximately 10 years old. The quote to replace the garage door is $2,472.50.
The landlord said the garage door has not been repaired or replaced and can still be used, but it is intended to be replaced. The landlord has insurance and the insurance excess is $850. I make an order for this amount. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Claim for kitchen bench and floor repairs.
The landlord claimed $6,272.10 in relation to damage to the kitchen bench/cabinetry and $5,065 for damage to the floor. The landlord confirmed these claims relate to the same claims that were dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 16 October 2024.
There is a principle of finality in litigation which means that the parties must bring their best case on the day of the hearing, because the order of the Tribunal or Court will be final and end the proceeding (other than for appeals 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. and rehearing’s). In addition, the RTA states every order made by the Tribunal shall be final. 9 The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
The Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer 10 has said the following in relation to res judicata - Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties ... — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties ... of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel.
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate matters that formed part of their previous application. The claims for compensation for the kitchen and flooring were dismissed in the previous proceedings by the Order dated 16 October 2024. If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then the landlord could have appealed to the District Court.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims in respect of the kitchen bench and cabinetry and the floor are dismissed. Previous order 9 See s 80 of the RTA. 10 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at para [16].
On 16 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for termination, rent arrears to 16/10/24 and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
As the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression but as the application has not been wholly or substantially successful, I decline name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098148 — Property damage at 11 Clifton Street, Little River, RD 1, Little River 7591

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098148 — Property damage at 11 Clifton Street, Little River, RD 1, Little River 7591

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions